User talk:Anobi/Sandbox Archive 1

Unleash the critic inside...
The idea is good, but it is more like a mash-up of all games-characters-weapons-enemies unrelated articles. Well, I guess it is inevitable since we don't have that many article to create separate nav-boxes...

My comments on the template as it is now: My signature is NOT short! 10:55, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Miscellaneous". Really, it isn't all about gameplay.
 * Better to merge it with Production. It is too small by itself...
 * Section names. I don't like, like, most of them. I'll explain further...
 * Factions should be renamed to Story elements.
 * Objects and Environment should be merged into... something else. Hmmm... Something like "Interactables" or "Gameplay elements"... no, that won't work... arrrgh!
 * I think glitches and "normal" moves should be separated.
 * Devil Trigger --> "normal" moves.
 * Perfect Amulet and Kyrie's necklace --> Story elements. What the heck are they doing in the same category as orbs?
 * .... there is more, but maybe it is easier if I'll tinker with it myself. Can I?..

Also, please don't add section arguments as you did with "DMC#" nav-boxes. It isn't a good idea actually, and I always forget to fix it. My signature is NOT short! 10:57, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input! Hehe, there's a reason I titled the section "Kitchen Sink," because the rest of the wiki covers everything but the kitchen sink. :)

My responses:
 * 1) The only reason I titled it "gameplay" was because I used Category:Gameplay as a guide for what to include. Miscellaneous works fine, too
 * 2) Can do. I just made them separate on the off chance we decided to expand the development section
 * 3) I wasn't sure what to call pretty much any of the sections, nor exactly how to classify all the pages
 * 4) That's a good suggestion
 * 5) I was concerned they'd have too many pages under each heading, but it certainly can't hurt to condense a little
 * Hmm, maybe, but I'm afraid the difference might be a bit trivial
 * 1) Honestly I wasn't sure where to stick Devil Trigger to begin with
 * 2) They were classified as Items because they weren't interact-able objects or environment, but Story Elements is a way better place for them
 * 3) Feel free! Just remember this supposed to be a catch-all nav-box, and try not to remove pages. If anything, add more!

Section arguments? Are those the things? Oops, sorry! I just copy/pasted from the first nav box that was here when I joined, and used that as a base for all the others I made. A quick, if unsophisticated, way to fix that is to just add the subsection tag to every section of the template.

By the way, do those blue wheel devices have a name? I can't find anything on them! Somewhere I read that they were called Might & Magic Shields, (M&M Shields,) but I can't find the source again, or another reference. I think this wiki really needs an article on them. --Anobi 19:38, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Headers etc.
The main need for the headers within the fiction sections is not to illustrate what games the character appeared in, or to use as computer code. It's to give a clear time period for the events that are then relayed. If we remove it, we then have to specify something like "When Dante is called to Dumary Island" in place of "--Devil May Cry 2--".

The gameicon template you suggest is fine, and is in action at the khwiki. However, it is basically an index, and doesn't provide the dates that are provided here. As I've replied on the talk page, the thing you're probably looking for is the storylink template, which will work fine; however, if we are deciding that the headers are redundant on this page, it makes little sense to keep them for the same use on other pages. The storylink template should replace the headers, if we decide not to use the headers.

There is far too little available info about most characters or enemies to apply infoboxes, honestly. A lot of the stuff that we are using now or has been suggested is pretty arbitrary, and usually not actually distinguished in the games or literature. If we can get ahold of guides that give concrete stats, we can start building real infoboxes, but the main purpose of infoboxes is to display real, non-arbitrary stats in a legible manner.

Honestly, as for how to organize character articles, I would suggest the model laid out here. I've pretty much stayed away from the character articles in the past, but I agree that they are a mess that needs to be cleaned up.

Redirects: That is precisely wrong. Using redirects allows us to keep track of what precisely is linking to what. Using the hashes to direct links to specific sections means that if we end up renaming or splitting off a section, we have to comb through every single link to the main article to find the ones that are now in error. There is absolutely nothing wrong with directing links to redirects, and keeping them targeted at redirects makes editing much easier for both us, and for new editors who aren't going to know which super-article the term is actually covered on. Rewriting all the links to use hashes does not improve anything.

Plot synopses should be covered under "Fiction".

Removing duplicate links is fine.

Dante's is overly coded, and completely useless. The display does not distinguish between that and the other, and all it does is add text to type. Piped links, in general, hide the target article from the reader, and should only be used when absolutely necessary. For example, a "dark angel" is very bad practice.

Adding screenshots to plot synopses is fine. Removing valid information is not.

Regarding "plagiarism" in terms of using the library cites -- yes, we should not limit ourself to the exact phrasing of the library files, but oftentimes, the phrasing used is the most accurate and fluid way to cover it. We also need to make sure to cover all of the information given -- this is not wikipedia, and if we restrict ourself to notable content instead of being comprehensive with accurate content, then we might as well not exist. If there are specific places where you feel the information could be more clearly expressed, please not them on their talk pages, but relying on the sources is not a bad thing in and of itself.(ಠ_ೃ)﻿ Bully!  20:54, October 8, 2011 (UTC)